So what are you ARs doing to prevent the coming thermageddon ELE??? What are you doing to mitigate the suffering of the coming human population crash?? You do care about humans, too, don't you???

Spam about a South African animal preserve doesn't help their long term future if humans ruin the biosphere.

Right on Jameswill22! We have to take care of the biosphere first!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

_________________"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

I promote veganism and animal rights because I don't want the animals to suffer. In my opinion it makes no difference why somebody is suffering. So some time ago I started thinking about wild living animals. Their suffering is something that seems almost completely ignored or forgotten by most animal rights activists.

From what I have seen and heard and read, AR activists are almost equally concerned ..... although there seems to be several areas of concern when it comes to animals.

Quote:

In my opinion it is one of the most important concerns. For a simple reason: there are much much more animals in the wild than in factory farms.

I don't even need to do the math .... this statement could never be true. The number of animals killed on a daily basis in abattoirs each day is .... what do you think? have you looked into it? The number of animals that live in the wild is much more finite than the number that can be reproduced in concentrated operations which are designed for the exact purpose of breeding, raising and slaughtering. At such a rate, we would have killed off the existing wild animals sometime ago.

Quote:

And nature is cruel. Animals in the wild suffer from many things like predation, disease, parasites, injuries, cold, starvation, stress and more. Many animals give birth to hundreds or thousands of offspring hoping a few of them live long enough to grow up fully.

Nature is nature and has her own kind of intelligence. It is not up to us to question that intelligence and yet, because we are also part of nature ..... nature being made of rock and vegetation and animals, we use our evolved intelligence which is only natural. Animals do suffer in the wild and that is also natural. They hunt and are hunted. They get diseases and parasites. They sometimes starve. Yet they also thrive in many ways because they get to roam, procreate, and play. They are free even when they lay down to die.

Quote:

Our ethics concerning humans and human rights do not end with the abolition of slavery, so why should our ethics concerning animals?

The abolition of slavery has not ended our lack of ethics concerning human rights. If we can't even treat each other well, how will we ever come to the consideration of animals?

Quote:

'Many humans look at nature from an aesthetic perspective and think in terms of biodiversity and the health of ecosystems, but forget that the animals that inhabit these ecosystems are individuals and have their own needs. Disease, starvation, predation, ostracism, and sexual frustration are endemic in so-called healthy ecosystems. The great taboo in the animal rights movement is that most suffering is due to natural causes.' - Albert, in Nick Bostrom's "Golden"

This quote makes little sense to me. For instance, if one is looking at nature from an aesthetic perspective, then one is basking in the beauty ..... taking it in ..... etc. And since animals are part of that natural place , why would one not notice them also? And for 'Albert' to list sexual frustration as a reason for "scientific" intervention is ..... what? And if most suffering is due to natural causes, why is this the great taboo?

There are predators which are prey for something else. There are diseases and accidents associated with life. Thus, the only way to prevent all suffering is to kill all life and be done with it.[/quote]

I think in some cases we can do something between predators and prey. When the predator is trying to kill his pray only for instinct and not for need of eating (exemple: a cat playing with a mouse).Human society show the contrast between predator and prey: should we do nothing between exploiter and used?Should the doctors work only for money? or they should have a moral obligation to save their patients from the suffering of a disease?Disease come to limit overpopulation: should we stop looking for a cure for the terrible disease? and accepting suffering and death as nature law?

So do you think we don't have to save nobody from suffering, because suffering is part of life? I think we have sometimes to do something in our society and in the wildlife too to avoid some kind of suffering.

Sure we have to intervene to stop suffering of animals in nature.Like we should intervene to stop hunger, thirst, diseases and wars in wild human populations, living in tribù or villages in Africa or somewhere else.

The progress is important for ALL humans and animals too.We should not be egoists, despite nature law teach us to be cruel and to think only to our benefits.We should bring progress all over the world to human and animals to avoid their suffering, if and when it is possible.Like we should teach reading to illiterates to improve their life.Like we have to save the savage children in Africa from hunger.Civilisation is helpful. But we have not to use our power to dominate others.

We should remember that thousands years ago we were living in small groups, in savage way.To avoid suffering we escaped from our original natural way of life.All the products, the comforts, the objects, the medicines, the houses that we have are to avoid pain and suffering.

We feel powerful only because we have a long history that brought us knowledge, discoveries and wellness.Now the question is: should we share with others what we have or not? I think yes.

Another thing, farm animals are in general ugly places to dominate animals. And zoos too. Because people think to make money.We should change our mind and our way to relate with animals.It's not wrong using them for food. Or keeping them in captivity.But we have to consider their needs, their interests, their welfare.

And I think human organization is useful to improve productivity. It's better a big biological intensive agricultural production, to give food to more people, animals etc. in spite of a small familiar production.The space used in the familiar production is more.Human organized production bring more space, more time, more specialization in our society.

Letizia: A cat playing with a mouse is being a cat, and a smart mouse would not have been prey. And nature provides prey animals with a natural anesthetic that dulls sensations. So let the cat be...

As for letting epidemics run their course, that always seems fine to people who are not at risk, and whose family members or children are not at risk, and who have no idea what the old epidemics could do. Although some are getting an idea, with the idiocy of parents not vaccinating their children leading to the re-emergence of diseases like whooping cough and measles, and children still being infected with polio, not to mention malaria that kills millions a year, or tuberculosis. And some of the most hard-line animal rights people use modern medicines because "the animals used for that are dead' and "I must stay alive to help the animals". Animal research has produced safe contraception and people will use it, especially in the developing world where if children will survive (again thank you modern medicine) women will have fewer children. It seems to be the cocooned rich Western women who now want to breed again and have more children, taking their cue from Hollywood it seems. Want to save the world? Yes, but not by giving someone else's child a chance... not by sacrificing any of my lifestyle, cars, or foreign travel. Sorry, I get quite cross when told by someone having their sixth child that they really want it (I would sincerely hope so) and they can afford it - yes, but can the rest of the world?

Natual anesthetic? The right word is STRESS. Stress is the feeling we have when under pressure, while stressors are the things we respond to in our environment. Examples of stressors are noises, unpleasant people, a speeding car, or even going out on a first date. Generally (but not always), the more stressors we experience, the more stressed we feel. When faced with a challenge or a threat, your body activates resources to protect you - to either get away as fast as you can, or fight.Our fight-or-flight response is our body's sympathetic nervous system reacting to a stressful event. Our body produces larger quantities of the chemicals cortisol, adrenaline and noradrenaline, which trigger a higher heart rate, heightened muscle preparedness, sweating, and alertness - all these factors help us protect ourselves in a dangerous or challenging situation.

Non-essential body functions slow down, such as our digestive and immune systems when we are in fight-or flight response mode. All resources can then be concentrated on rapid breathing, blood flow, alertness and muscle use.

When we are stressed the following happens: •Blood pressure rises•Breathing becomes more rapid•Digestive system slows down•Heart rate (pulse) rises•Immune system goes down•Muscles become tense•We do not sleep (heightened state of alertness)

Source: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/145855.phpStress is a feeling humans and animals can have. And we know very well that STRESS CAUSES PAIN AND SUFFERING: Stress can play a part in problems such as headaches, high blood pressure, heart problems, diabetes, skin conditions, asthma, arthritis, depression, and anxiety.

Stress is the body's reaction to any change that requires an adjustment or response. The body reacts to these changes with physical, mental, and emotional responses.

A cat with an abundance of food guaranteed for the present and the future doesn't need to maintain in exercise his hunt skills.Sure he will tries to maintain his skills. But we know he has a owner that will love him for all his life. So we can stop the hunting and save the mouse. And mouses are friendly harmless animals (despite someone says that they bring diseases).

Cobie, I have never said that we should let epidemics run their course. I want only show that we want intervene on the nature. And that is useful, we have to use vaccines, contraception, drugs and medications.I don't help animals in not using discoveries that already exist.

Last year I met a nice Jewish boy that was against the use of Nazi discoveries because they were obtained torturing Jewishes, gypsies, homosexuals and handicapped people.I expressed to him my opinion that for sure the discoveries were obtained in an unhethical way. Going back we should do the best to avoid what happened to those people. But nowadays we can't save the people already dead. We can save the people still alive and needy cures. So I think we have to use Nazi discoveries. The same, we have to use the few discoveries already obtained using animals. Because they are already dead now. We can save the animals still alive and the people still alive.

Cobie, you used some wrong example speaking about the vaccinations obtained with animals. You mention some vaccinations not obtained using animals.

From what I can tell; the point seems to be a cat being a cat is bad and we, as humans are obligated to correct this....

HUH??

Ever think a cat is more 'intuned' to the balance of nature then humans? It's doing what it was created to do; hunt. The idea we as humans just know better about how it should be behaving is silly; indeed; even dangerous to the enviroment.

When Ki-ki(my cat) catches a mouse or a bird(or a spider or wasp) he gets to bat it around as much as he wants.....it makes him a happier cat, I believe. Cats are happiest being cats, in my view....

Letizia: You really must try and understand any replies before flying off the handle with half-baked biology cribbed from a poor web site. Or ask what I meant by "natural anaesthetic". Yes, when a prey animal is at risk of a predator, its nervous sytem will generate a fight or flight response. This is not the same as stress, BTW - you and I do the same thing if we want to go for a run. And often, prey does escape, as counts of successful hunts show. But once an animal can no longer escape, and/or is in severe pain its brain generates endorphins, which dull sensation and cause drowsiness. Nowadays nature documentaries are sanitised and rarely show an actual "kill"" but if they do you may see that the prey animal once the predator has gotten hold of it and escape has become impossible appears to "give up", standing there and collapsing. That a system like that also is present in humans is also clear, one of the most strking testimonies to it being that of the explorer Stanley who described being overcome with a sense of comfort and lack of pain when a lion grabbed him by the shoulder, and he was sure he was going to die (the lion was shot just in time). Momentary stress is of benefit to animals, it keeps them alert and aware; only chronic stress because of inescapable factors leads to deterioration of health.

As for vaccinations not derived from animal experiments, please cite modern examples; there may be more than Jenner's small pox vaccinations (but his material still came form sick cows) but in order for that vaccine to succeed in eradicating the disease it had to be produced on a large scale and using animals. If you are not willing to allow that, who shall receive treatment? What about developing vaccines for animals? Are you aware that rinderpest has been eliminated? And apparently, you do not consider it hypocrisy to use drugs that are on the market, and agree with the "the animals are already dead" argument. Yes, but what about the quality testing that still may be needed? As for your argument about using the data from medical experiments in WW II - you really do not have a clue, do you? In your world, no animal must ever be allowed to be used, even under to-day's strong legislation, to support a better life for humans (or animals), but you can be extremely unethical about human data.... and dishonest in your defense of such practices. I am so glad I live in my world, where animals, especially in laboratories, have legal protection and impartial oversight, the experiments by ethics committees and the animals themselves by specialist board-certified veterinarians, and where experiments involving humans, and medical practice is subject to the Helsinki Declaration... while that does not mean that all research is perfect, if it is not, prosecutions are possible. In your world, this would only happen if animals suffered.... no thanks, all living beings are in this world together, and by treating all ethically all can benefit.

Letizia: You really must try and understand any replies before flying off the handle with half-baked biology cribbed from a poor web site. Or ask what I meant by "natural anaesthetic". Yes, when a prey animal is at risk of a predator, its nervous sytem will generate a fight or flight response. This is not the same as stress, BTW - you and I do the same thing if we want to go for a run. And often, prey does escape, as counts of successful hunts show. But once an animal can no longer escape, and/or is in severe pain its brain generates endorphins, which dull sensation and cause drowsiness. Nowadays nature documentaries are sanitised and rarely show an actual "kill"" but if they do you may see that the prey animal once the predator has gotten hold of it and escape has become impossible appears to "give up", standing there and collapsing. That a system like that also is present in humans is also clear, one of the most strking testimonies to it being that of the explorer Stanley who described being overcome with a sense of comfort and lack of pain when a lion grabbed him by the shoulder, and he was sure he was going to die (the lion was shot just in time). Momentary stress is of benefit to animals, it keeps them alert and aware; only chronic stress because of inescapable factors leads to deterioration of health.

As for vaccinations not derived from animal experiments, please cite modern examples; there may be more than Jenner's small pox vaccinations (but his material still came form sick cows) but in order for that vaccine to succeed in eradicating the disease it had to be produced on a large scale and using animals. If you are not willing to allow that, who shall receive treatment? What about developing vaccines for animals? Are you aware that rinderpest has been eliminated? And apparently, you do not consider it hypocrisy to use drugs that are on the market, and agree with the "the animals are already dead" argument. Yes, but what about the quality testing that still may be needed? As for your argument about using the data from medical experiments in WW II - you really do not have a clue, do you? In your world, no animal must ever be allowed to be used, even under to-day's strong legislation, to support a better life for humans (or animals), but you can be extremely unethical about human data.... and dishonest in your defense of such practices. I am so glad I live in my world, where animals, especially in laboratories, have legal protection and impartial oversight, the experiments by ethics committees and the animals themselves by specialist board-certified veterinarians, and where experiments involving humans, and medical practice is subject to the Helsinki Declaration... while that does not mean that all research is perfect, if it is not, prosecutions are possible. In your world, this would only happen if animals suffered.... no thanks, all living beings are in this world together, and by treating all ethically all can benefit.

You are a very patient & informative well balanced person Cobie .

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

Letizia: You really must try and understand any replies before flying off the handle with half-baked biology cribbed from a poor web site. Or ask what I meant by "natural anaesthetic". Yes, when a prey animal is at risk of a predator, its nervous sytem will generate a fight or flight response. This is not the same as stress, BTW - you and I do the same thing if we want to go for a run. And often, prey does escape, as counts of successful hunts show. But once an animal can no longer escape, and/or is in severe pain its brain generates endorphins, which dull sensation and cause drowsiness. Nowadays nature documentaries are sanitised and rarely show an actual "kill"" but if they do you may see that the prey animal once the predator has gotten hold of it and escape has become impossible appears to "give up", standing there and collapsing. That a system like that also is present in humans is also clear, one of the most strking testimonies to it being that of the explorer Stanley who described being overcome with a sense of comfort and lack of pain when a lion grabbed him by the shoulder, and he was sure he was going to die (the lion was shot just in time). Momentary stress is of benefit to animals, it keeps them alert and aware; only chronic stress because of inescapable factors leads to deterioration of health.

As for vaccinations not derived from animal experiments, please cite modern examples; there may be more than Jenner's small pox vaccinations (but his material still came form sick cows) but in order for that vaccine to succeed in eradicating the disease it had to be produced on a large scale and using animals. If you are not willing to allow that, who shall receive treatment? What about developing vaccines for animals? Are you aware that rinderpest has been eliminated? And apparently, you do not consider it hypocrisy to use drugs that are on the market, and agree with the "the animals are already dead" argument. Yes, but what about the quality testing that still may be needed? As for your argument about using the data from medical experiments in WW II - you really do not have a clue, do you? In your world, no animal must ever be allowed to be used, even under to-day's strong legislation, to support a better life for humans (or animals), but you can be extremely unethical about human data.... and dishonest in your defense of such practices. I am so glad I live in my world, where animals, especially in laboratories, have legal protection and impartial oversight, the experiments by ethics committees and the animals themselves by specialist board-certified veterinarians, and where experiments involving humans, and medical practice is subject to the Helsinki Declaration... while that does not mean that all research is perfect, if it is not, prosecutions are possible. In your world, this would only happen if animals suffered.... no thanks, all living beings are in this world together, and by treating all ethically all can benefit.

No Cobie is mad.

He says that an animal "in severe pain its brain generates endorphins": no that's not true; the brain could generate adrenaline and that's different.

He says "animals, especially in laboratories, have legal protection and impartial oversight, the experiments by ethics committees and the animals themselves by specialist board-certified veterinarians..." No, inside a laboratory everything can happen. There are not real guarantee about the respect of the law: in fact there are always new scandals about animal conditions in the labs, and this brings some lab to close.There is not ethical way to torture someone.

Letizia: You really must try and understand any replies before flying off the handle with half-baked biology cribbed from a poor web site. Or ask what I meant by "natural anaesthetic". Yes, when a prey animal is at risk of a predator, its nervous sytem will generate a fight or flight response. This is not the same as stress, BTW - you and I do the same thing if we want to go for a run. And often, prey does escape, as counts of successful hunts show. But once an animal can no longer escape, and/or is in severe pain its brain generates endorphins, which dull sensation and cause drowsiness. Nowadays nature documentaries are sanitised and rarely show an actual "kill"" but if they do you may see that the prey animal once the predator has gotten hold of it and escape has become impossible appears to "give up", standing there and collapsing. That a system like that also is present in humans is also clear, one of the most strking testimonies to it being that of the explorer Stanley who described being overcome with a sense of comfort and lack of pain when a lion grabbed him by the shoulder, and he was sure he was going to die (the lion was shot just in time). Momentary stress is of benefit to animals, it keeps them alert and aware; only chronic stress because of inescapable factors leads to deterioration of health.

As for vaccinations not derived from animal experiments, please cite modern examples; there may be more than Jenner's small pox vaccinations (but his material still came form sick cows) but in order for that vaccine to succeed in eradicating the disease it had to be produced on a large scale and using animals. If you are not willing to allow that, who shall receive treatment? What about developing vaccines for animals? Are you aware that rinderpest has been eliminated? And apparently, you do not consider it hypocrisy to use drugs that are on the market, and agree with the "the animals are already dead" argument. Yes, but what about the quality testing that still may be needed? As for your argument about using the data from medical experiments in WW II - you really do not have a clue, do you? In your world, no animal must ever be allowed to be used, even under to-day's strong legislation, to support a better life for humans (or animals), but you can be extremely unethical about human data.... and dishonest in your defense of such practices. I am so glad I live in my world, where animals, especially in laboratories, have legal protection and impartial oversight, the experiments by ethics committees and the animals themselves by specialist board-certified veterinarians, and where experiments involving humans, and medical practice is subject to the Helsinki Declaration... while that does not mean that all research is perfect, if it is not, prosecutions are possible. In your world, this would only happen if animals suffered.... no thanks, all living beings are in this world together, and by treating all ethically all can benefit.

No Cobie is mad.

He says that an animal "in severe pain its brain generates endorphins": no that's not true; the brain could generate adrenaline and that's different.

He says "animals, especially in laboratories, have legal protection and impartial oversight, the experiments by ethics committees and the animals themselves by specialist board-certified veterinarians..." No, inside a laboratory everything can happen. There are not real guarantee about the respect of the law: in fact there are always new scandals about animal conditions in the labs, and this brings some lab to close.There is not ethical way to torture someone.

I assume you are quite young & naive Letizia as well as uneducated in some important realities about how prey die under less pain & stress because of endorphin's. Fear drains out adrenaline before the pain hits & then when in a death grip endorphin's do ease the tension & the pain or induce a shock like trance. Dr. Cobie is not mad!!! She is a very wise and well rounded person whose compassion drives her to find answers to the cures which will be more compassionate then returning to the "Dark Ages of Medicine." BTW. Le tiz ia seems to be a very pretty name. Is that how you would break it down for pronunciation.

Quote:

No Cobie is mad.

He says that an animal "in severe pain its brain generates endorphins": no that's not true; the brain could generate adrenaline and that's different.

_________________I use red, not because of anger but to define my posts to catch rebuttals latter and it makes the quote feature redundent for me. The rest of you pick your own color.

If you want to claim that I am wrong about endorphins, a reference to some item on you tube simply does not cut it. You must show scientific evidence that I am wrong. Likewise, if you look at my message, you will see that I acknowledge that although laboratory animals have legal protection, nevertheless sometimes things go wrong and rules have not been adhered to. What you miss in this is that these problems have actually been picked up, labs in some cases fined, and the situation remedied. Animal research is an enterprise run by humans, and I don't see why, if sometimes things go wrong, that then is reason for you to extrapolate that to "therefore things must be wrong everywhere", again supported by some you tube items. Have you still not realised that because something is on you tube, it need not be true, or may only show you part of an argument, or cherry-picked views? Belief is not good enough, facts matter. Belief is easy and uncritical, but critically evaluating and investigating the facts and trying to get to the bottom of things, hard work. As well, if you really want to help animals, no one in research will take your concerns seriously if you show you haven't got a clue about how research is done, and how animals are legally protected (or that all the best journals would not publish any results where procedures were suspect, and not vetted by an ethics coommittee); you do not have to understand the science behind it (although a basic understanding of biology is helpful) but you must know how things are done; only then can you hope to be listened to if you think they should be done better, differently, or not at all. In all your posts, you seem to take the easy way out, never presenting real evidence or a real argument. Like your belief about endorphins... others have pointed out that I am a neuroscientist with years of experience; however, that does not mean you have to take what I say for granted; instead, you could challenge me to produce the background to my statements: papers published on the topic, web sites of reputable scientific organizations to consult so you can see for yourself. Remember that those who make the claim must provide the proof, and real proof - not you tube clips. So let me ask you for proof: why am I mad?

endorphins group of opioid peptides made in nerve cells in the brain and released from their axons as neurotransmitters or neurohormones, which bind to and activate opioid receptors of other cells (where opioid drugs also act). The first to be identified in brain tissue (1970s) were named enkephalins; many more were later identified. They are released in strenuous exercise and in stressful or painful situations. Subgroups have varied and widespread actions, diminishing the sensation of pain, inducing euphoria (e.g. 'runner's high') and interacting with the immune system.http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictio ... endorphins

When red deer (Cervus elaphus) were hunted by humans with hounds the average distance travelled was at least 19 km. This study of 64 hunted red deer provides the first empirical evidence on their state at the time of death. Blood and muscle samples obtained from hunted deer after death were compared with samples from 50 non-hunted red deer that had been cleanly shot with rifles. The effects on deer of long hunts were (i) depletion of carbohydrate resources for powering muscles, (ii) disruption of muscle tissue, and (iii) elevated secretion of beta-endorphin. High concentrations of cortisol, typically associated with extreme physiological and psychological stress, were found. Damage to red blood cells occurred early in the hunts; possible mechanisms are discussed. Taken together, the evidence suggests that red deer are not well-adapted by their evolutionary or individual history to cope with the level of activity imposed on them when hunted with hounds.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9447728

So you can imagine how stressful is the life for an animal inside a lab: they are not well-adapted by their evolutionary or individual history to cope with the level of activity imposed on them by the jail and the testing.

I found this website with the laws regulating animal use in laboratories in USA.http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/olaw.htmThis is only to write something down. No way to avoid pain and stress for the animals.Only putting an end to animal experimentation the suffering, the pain, the stress, the oppression, the abuse could finish.

Sorry that I can't reply in a wider way but I have a lot of things to do in these days as I am going to manifest at the Cinema Festival in Venice for Stop Vivisection.